Yesterday's New York Times editorial: "A Big Storm Requires a Big Government":

*****

Disaster coordination is one of the most vital functions of "big government," which is why Mitt Romney wants to eliminate it. At a Republican primary debate last year, Mr. Romney was asked whether emergency management was a function that should be returned to the states. He not only agreed, he went further.

"Absolutely," he said. "Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that's the right direction. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that's even better." Mr. Romney not only believes that states acting independently can handle the response to a vast East Coast storm better than Washington, but that profit-making companies can do an even better job. He said it was "immoral" for the federal government to do all these things if it means increasing the debt.

It's an absurd notion, but it's fully in line with decades of Republican resistance to federal emergency planning. FEMA, created by President Jimmy Carter, was elevated to cabinet rank in the Bill Clinton administration, but was then demoted by President George W. Bush, who neglected it, subsumed it into the Department of Homeland Security, and placed it in the control of political hacks. The disaster of Hurricane Katrina was just waiting to happen.

*****

Well, as the Wall Street Journal points out, Mitt Romney has no intention of eliminating FEMA but don't wait for the retraction. Instead, examine Romney's words in context, quoted in full by the WSJ:

*****

"Absolutely. Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that's the right direction.

Recently I blogged on the unspeakable treatment of Christian convert at the hands of his Muslim tormentors. Afghan convert to Christianity is charged with Apostasy: “Crimes punishable by death ... and Afghan Convert Out of Islam Pleads for Mercy.

Now we hear that the Red Cross joins the cabal of savages by its complicity. Afghan judicial officials refused to bat an eye at the humiliation he endured in the hands of his fellow prisoners. Beatings, sleep-deprivation and sexual abuse are all a part of the nightmare that has unfolded after his arrest.

Christmas has been banned by the Red Cross from its 430 fund-raising shops.

Staff have been ordered to take down decorations and to remove any other signs of the Christian festival because they could offend Moslems.

The charitys politically-correct move triggered an avalanche of criticism and mockery last night  from Christians and Moslems.

Christine Banks, a volunteer at a Red Cross shop in New Romney, Kent, said: We put up a nativity scene in the window and were told to take it out. It seems we cant have anything that means Christmas. Were allowed to have some tinsel but thats it.

1) increased violation of natural rights of the individual due to increased initiation of force by big government 2) increased control over individuals by government 3) loss of circumstantial freedom of self-realization of individuals (freedom of action) 4) loss of natural freedom of self-determination of individuals (free choice) 5) assault on causality in the form of destruction of the individual as a causal agent 6) assault on individualism and the primacy of the individual 7) potential of tyranny of the majority in a democracy 8) potential for loss of personal control by the individual 9) potential for loss of ability to choose and act by the individual 10) potential for the loss of the power to choose and act by the individual 11) potential for the loss of the freedom to choose and act by the individual 12) potential for the loss of personal responsibility by the individual

In a free country with a rational culture and a just government,the ends do not justify the means, and might does not make right. Helping some does not justify the use of force to harm others. Huge disasters are few and rare. The fact that a big government might be able to be of more help to some in the conditions of a huge disaster is not a valid rationalization that it should be present in normal conditions, because the overall harm of big government to everyone during normal conditions outweighs the good of big government to some during the conditions of a big disaster. In this case, the overall benefit to harm ratio for the country as a whole in the long run is too small.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.